That in fact won't and can't happen because there's no motivation for it to happen. There is no "free will" available to make that decision, and there is no actual will, either, so it is impossible. If you disagree then I suppose you think you can saw your arm off for no reason via "free will". Which in fact won't and can't happen because you had no reason to do so. If you had a sufficient reason then it not happening would be impossible instead. Whatever decisions are made, causality and acausality both exclude actual choice, as the root cause is never controlled, and even if it was there would simply be a time loop that would force itself to occur, giving no extra "freedom". "Free will" is undefined, unexplained magic, and thus of no scientific meaning.
Do you think Sweden "is a poor nation compared with Australia", or did you not read his post well?
Here's US employment by sector.
This isn't a criticism of you, as you obviously linked for the purpose of the "real" (I'm sure the "real" data is also massaged, but less so than the forecasts) data in your link, but I love how full of shit those projections are. +3.1m jobs 2002-2012, +15.6m 2012-2022? Hahahaha. Goods-producing, excluding agriculture: -4.1m/+1.2m (somehow it will take more humans to produce goods than before!); Services-providing: +7.5m/+14.1m (of course services won't be made more efficient and automated; we will need far more humans than before!), Nonagriculture self-employed and unpaid family worker: -0.2/+0.5m (perhaps they have a non-fantasy/non-biased reason for this one, as it's nearly meaningless to the overall numbers). Only agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting admits that trends are likely to accelerate, giving -0.1m/-0.2m. I assume this is because nobody has those jobs anyway, so they couldn't pretend to forecast a large enough gain to really affect their overall numbers.
If you want to share them with someone because you just have to talk with someone about the guy you murdered last week
Hey, how do you know about that! I didn't tell-wait! Tom?! Tom!! Damn you, Tom!!!
Well, the GP said to follow one's conscience. So we can compare following one's conscience to following laws 100% made for the rich and powerful. Essentially choosing between supporting personal ethics and supporting the unfairness and corruption of scum who would take your organs whenever they felt like it and make you constantly buy air to stay alive if they could.
I know who you are. I know what you want. You are looking for credit for my work, and I can tell you I won't give it to you. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my code go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
But by the time they get here with my burger I've starved to death.
There! Are! Four! Os!
Do you notice that all of your "replacements", even after dropping "$FOO brand" from the product names, take longer to say and are often less clear than the casual names are? Until you "fix" that don't expect to win against society on this. Ever (i.e. any given time).
Surely it's a Beowulf cluster of Grendels!
"That" referred to the quote, not the quote plus the continuation of the post.
But who did the politicians get their votes from?
Nobody forced the voters to vote the way they did.
Who did you vote for?
Cthulhu, of course.
More and less are fine; it's just that ignorant and/or emotional people (and the advertisers that love them) love saying that things are 2x better when they're merely 200% as good.
You aren't. Measure better next time.
You forgot to uncrop.